UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE REVEILLE TO RETREAT: THE EVOLUTION OF FIELD MUSIC IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY, 1775-1918 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY BY KYLE J. HUDICK EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN MAY 14, 2008 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….……………………….2 1. A REVOLUTIONARY START……………………………….……………………………….4 2. FIFES ON THE FRONTIER………………………………………………………………....11 3. CIVIL WAR………………………………………………………………………….………..16 4. “BOOTS AND SADDLES”…………………………………………………………………..27 CONCLUSION...………………………………………………………………………………...33 APPENDIX Part I: Von Steuben‟s Beats and Signals...…………………………………………………35 Part II: Evolution of Reveille in the Nineteenth-Century…………………………...............38 Part III: Upton‟s Reorganization…………………………………………………………..42 Part IV: Modern Bugle Calls………………………………………………………….........52 WORKS CITED….……………………………………………………………………………....53 1 Introduction It was 5:45 p.m. on the first day of Basic Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and the recruits were terrified. Immediately upon stepping from their cattle trucks, drill sergeants had verbally assaulted each and every new soldier. Now, standing in a small formation of twenty recruits, three more drill sergeants in “Smokey Bear” hats and screwed-up faces continued the harangue. None of these recruits even understood for what reason they were being victimized. Suddenly, the crisp, shrill notes of a bugle pumped over the loudspeaker. The drill sergeants stiffened. One of them took a deep breath and bellowed, “Platoon –- Parade, Rest! Present, Arms!” Twenty awkward arms snapped in salute to an unseen flag in a ceremony few, if any, understood. I was one of those recruits. No one ever told me the meaning or function of those bugle calls that I heard throughout my time in basic training. Seven years later, that was still the case. With the exception of the morning and evening flag ceremonies, the bugle calls heard on Fort Sill, Oklahoma and Fort McCoy, Wisconsin – while identical – still remain a mystery. One aspect of warfare seldom touched upon in popular military histories is the transmission of orders to large bodies of infantry, cavalry, and artillery in both garrison and field environments. Bugle calls represent one method of completing that task. However, it is impossible to understand the meaning of those calls unless one understands their origin, separate from the military bands that coexisted throughout the period 1775 to 1918. Field music of the United States Army was an important aspect of military communication, acting as the commander‟s mouthpiece, disseminating orders and delineating the duty day; to understand the modern bugle calls, we must understand the evolution of field music from the Revolution to the First World War. In order to gain an appreciation of the evolution of field music, it is important to examine music resources available to the military throughout the period, beginning with British manuals 2 available to the Continental Army and extending to Daniel D. Emmett‟s instructional manual of 1865. There are many sources available, some more readily-accessible than others. Examples such as the Entire New and Compleat Instructions for Fife and the Young Drummer’s Assistant, both from 1780s London, are difficult to obtain. Other sources, such as David Hazeltine‟s instruction of 1809, Ashford‟s A New, Useful, and Complete System of Drum Beating of 1812, and Bruce and Emmett‟s Fife Instructor of 1865 are more readily available. Furthermore, several infantry tactical manuals, featuring bugle calls used in the nineteenth-century and those still in the repertoire, were also examined. Determining what references were available for musicians was not the only avenue to follow in this study. It was essential to determine what was required of field musicians during the period in question. These requirements can be found in the ever-changing Army regulations. Regulations authored by the likes of Baron von Steuben, Winfield Scott, and eventually, the War Department staff, proved invaluable in this respect. Tactical manuals added to this store of knowledge by labeling those calls that were actually practical for use by the military in garrison and the field, sometimes adding on signals far beyond what was required. In the early years, regulations served the secondary purpose of functioning tactical manuals as well, but later they evolved into the manual of Emory Upton, who drew upon his experience in the Civil War, as well as the Signal Corps manuals and their variants from the early twentieth-century. Finally, it was not important solely to determine what was required by regulation, it was necessary to gain insight into how field music affected private soldiers. To this we look to service memoirs, beginning with the only work by an enlisted Continental soldier, that of Joseph Plumb Martin. This was then followed up with memoirs from the Mexican War, Civil War, frontier postings/campaigns, and the Spanish-American War. The Army, ever an institution entrenched in tradition, retains the anachronistic bugle calls in an inadvertent nod to the past. A typical day in the Army begins with the first note of “Reveille” 3 and ends with the last note of “Retreat.” The daily schedule of bugle calls is rooted in traditions that can be traced back to 1775. What follows is a history of their evolution and importance to military history. A Revolutionary Start The Revolutionary army that appeared on June 15, 1775 bore a remarkable resemblance to that of its British opponent in both form and function. This comes as no surprise, considering the very concept of a militia was an institution transported from England during the early days of the American colonies.1 Music was an integral component of those early militias, and it is easy to assume that field musicians of the colonial entities utilized British organization, training, and techniques. After all, they were British. As early as 1633, the Virginia Colony was utilizing drummers for marching practice to accompany its citizen soldiers. More elite units became associated with bands, a trend which continued throughout the colonial period. The Regiment of Artillery Company of Pennsylvania, nearly 130 years later, was commanded by Benjamin Franklin, who paid band members out of his own pocket.2 So, when the barely united colonies commenced fighting against their parent government, they marched with units based heavily on the model of their opponent, while still lacking a cohesive doctrinal standard that could be adopted by all states. One constant that was present was that of the field musicians. As historian Raoul F. Camus puts it, “There was no standardization of size among units, but all depended upon the drum for commands.”3 1 Raoul F. Camus, Military Music of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1976), 40. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 59. 4 The resolution of the Continental Congress for June 14, 1775 states, “Resolved, That six companies of expert rifflemen [sic] be immediately raised in Pennsylvania, two in Maryland, and two in Virginia; that each Company consist of a captain, three lieutenants, four serjeants [sic], four corporals, a drummer or trumpeter, and sixty-eight privates.”4 Field musicians were there at the beginning of this new army to echo commands in the field and regulate the solders‟ day. However, it appears that few musicians or private soldiers knew the rudiments of soldiering, as Joseph Plumb Martin of Connecticut relates: “I was called out every morning at reveille beating, which was at daybreak, to go to our regimental parade, in Broad-street [New York], and there practice the manual exercise, which was the most that was known in our new levies, if they knew even that.”5 When George Washington assumed command of this rag-tag army, he led a corps of officers that understood the fundamental principles of British tactics, including the value of field music. While many of Washington‟s officers had experience, the army was a raw outfit that proved little match for the British regulars. The campaign failures of 1776 showed the need for standardization.6 Worried about the quality of his field music, the General-in-Chief took steps to ensure that his fifers and drummers could properly direct troops on a turbulent battlefield. At that point there was no central direction for the training of fifers and drummers. Nearly one year after the Army was formalized, in June 1776, a Board of War was finally constructed. Besides “raising, fitting out, and dispatching all such land forces as may be ordered for the service of the United Colonies,” the Board filled several other administrative holes. Chief among these were the establishment of fife 4 United States Continental Congress, Worthington Chauncy Ford, et. al., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 v.2 1775, May 10-September 20 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), 89-90. 5 Joseph Plumb Martin, A Narrative of A Revolutionary Soldier: Some of the Adventures, Dangers, and Sufferings of Joseph Plumb Martin Rev. Ed. (New York: Signet Classics, 2001), 18. 6 Camus, Military Music, 59-61. 5 and drum majors that would be responsible for the regular training and performance of field musicians.7 Establishment of the Board would have its greatest impact the following year. The army of 1776 was discharged and replaced with eighty-eight regiments enlisted for “three years, or during the war.”8 Washington was ultimately responsible for his field musicians when he “ordered the exact times and procedures for the daily camp duties, standardizing them at least for that portion of the army that was serving with him.”9 These regulations, solidified with two hours of daily practice, guided the troops on the field of battle and delineated the daily routine up through the historic encampment at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania during the winter of 1777-1778. Those soldiers who survived the winter bore witness to immense hardships that few who came after could or can now understand, and the stories have become legend.